The Sadducees for the most part taught what the Torah taught what various schools within Judaism developed were simply that ideas absorbed from other cultures.
Luke 16:19-31 Sheol/Hades/Hell? literal vs. metaphor
by I_love_Jeff 39 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
King Solomon
jd said:
"In contemporary times the Jehovah's Witnesses are allied with secular atheists and other non-Christians on the margins who go to great lengths to deny the existence of the Christian immortal soul, or any soul for that matter, claiming that the soul is nothing more than the product of an organism, secretions of the brain and such, basing their claims in part on “neurophysiology,”
Methinks you need to review the concept of 'burden of proof': if you postulate the existence of a soul, you must do far better than cite historical precedence in such beliefs. Ancient men believed in many ideas that have long since been disproven (eg Babylonian and Egyptians and Hebrews believed the organ of cognition was the HEART, not the BRAIN: that idea has long since been disproven by anatomists and (no quotes needed: it's a real discipline in science) neurophysiologists. God looks ignorant of the actual role of "His" crowning achievement in human creation, the brain, in Genesis 3:15, ascribing the emotive functions to another organ by saying, "evil thoughts found in the hearts of men".). That's no poetic figure of speech: that WAS the literal belief when the Bible was written (as confirmed by existing secular texts, including medical texts both older and younger than the Torah).
Back to soul: I strongly encourage a review the ancient roles of nephesh and ruah, noting the subtle differences; both have long-since been abandoned by science on no lack of confirmatory findings. RB Orians wrote an excellent work of ancient beliefs on soul, spirit, animus, genius, etc in his work, "Origins of European Thought".
JWs are halfway there: if they gave us the superstitious Hebraic belief in resurrection, they'd be getting warmer....
-
jonathan dough
Methinks you need to review the concept of 'burden of proof': if you postulate the existence of a soul, you must do far better than cite historical precedence in such beliefs. Review the ancient roles of nephesh and ruah, noting the subtle differences; both have long-since been abandoned by science on no lack of confirmatory findings.
Burden of proof? We're not litigating, and faith is not something which must be "proven" in the conventional sense. It can't be. How can one prove the resurrection of the dead?
Of course science has abandoned the concept of a soul, that's the entire point. "Science" doesn't believe in a creator, either, or the Bible, or the resurrection, and the list goes on. As believers, which you obviously are not, the precedence cited is found within the Bible which is sufficient for those of us who know better. We walk by faith, not by sight, and the words found within that book which you so obviously disdain, at your own peril I might add.
http://www.soul.host-ed.me/i-soul-5.html
http://www.144000.110mb.com/directory/jehovahs_witnesses_directory_beliefs.html
As for atheists and "scientists" getting the final word in on the matter, their theories might have abandoned the concept of a soul, but their theories have also been reputiated by very knowledgable experts in the field who have proven quite successfully that scientific materialists can't even agree on the core issues, and have a lot of explaining to do because the "science" is not science at all and fails the burden of disproving the existence of a soul. If you're truly interested I suggest reading"The Soul Hypothesis."
In the Soul Hypothesis: Investigations into the Existence of the Soul(Continuum), co-editors Mark C. Baker and Stewart Goetz have assembled an impressive interdisciplinary team of scholars to address questions about the existence and nature of the soul.
“The Soul of the Matter” - Charles Taliaferro
“Minds, Brains and Brains in Vats” - Daniel N. Robinson
“Brains and Souls; Grammar and Speaking” - Mark Baker
“Making Things Happen: Souls in Action” - Stewart Goetz
“Energy of the Soul” - Robin Collins
“The Measure of All Things: Quantum Mechanics and the Soul” - Dean Zimmerman
“From Seeing to Seer” - Hans Halvorson
“Souls Beastly and Human” - William Hasker
“A Scientific Case for the Soul” - Robin CollinsYou can preview the book here.
The book is unique is combining philosophical and scientific arguments for dualism, and the result is a rigorous, exciting, persuasive presentation of the issues and a stimulating challenge to so much of the reductionism that reigns in the sciences. As was noted in a recent review of the book in the WSJ,
Sooner or later, the contributors to "The Soul Hypothesis" warn, scientists will pinpoint the exact three neurons whose firing accompanies the thought of our deciding to make a phone call or, if you prefer, deciding to get up and get a beer from the refrigerator. As ever more such micro-couplings are observed, we will—so scientists tell us with unseemly glee— gradually come to see that our cherished conscious life is nothing but a long series of electrical impulses, not an autonomous realm of free will and free thought. Co-editor Mark C. Baker cites the psychologist Steven Pinker, who finds it plausible to say that neural "activity in the brain" simply "is the mind."
The book's contributors set out this scientific challenge fully and engagingly, but they also expose its fallacies. They note, for instance, that even if two things differ in their essential nature, as do mental thoughts and physical actions—or legislatures and laws—there is no reason why the one can't cause the other. As David Hume argued, what establishes our idea of cause and effect is the regular "conjunction" of two events. That a physical act regularly follows a mental decision suggests, as co-editor Stewart Goetz writes, that the one is "causing" the other and that voluntary human action exists.
-
King Solomon
JD said:
Of course science has abandoned the concept of a soul, that's the entire point. "Science" doesn't believe in a creator, either, or the Bible, or the resurrection, and the list goes on. As believers, which you obviously are not, the precedence cited is found within the Bible which is sufficient for those of us who know better. We walk by faith, not by sight, and the words found within that book which you so obviously disdain, at your own peril I might add.
Believe me, I am familiar with the definition of faith offered in the Bible (assured expectation of things hoped for, although not evidently beheld), and the fact that the basis on Xian faith is built upon (validated) by the Bible, itself. Even heard of internal validation? It's a circular reference to a "proof" that is unconvincing to me and anyone who understands logical fallacies.
You missed my point:
Xians want to claim YWHW to be the Intelligent Designer, but one of the basic criteria of an expert is knowledge of their own designs. If someone claims to be a watchmaker, wouldn't you expect them to know what the mainspring does vs the hands on the face?
God's ignorance of his own design is on display for anyone willing to examine the evidence. eg if you examine the Israelite sacrificial rituals which were supposedly handed down from YHWH, you will learn that they are based on prevailing anatomical ignorance of the day. Hebrews mistakenly believed ALL the organs of cognition were contained in the torso, with the lungs, heart, liver, kidney serving cognitive functions. In fact, the anatomical organ of the brain is NOT mentioned in the Bible AT ALL, since they didn't know what it DID. (This reflects Egyptian influence, as they were considered the experts on human anatomy of the ancient world due to experience with preparing mummies for the afterlife. (Hebrews had prohibitions against touching dead bodies) The Egyptian physicians carefully preserved the torso organs during mummification, but discarded the brain, as they didn't ascribe any important useful role to it).
Same is found in the OT references to the kidneys (reins, in KJV), as they were considered as the organs of making decisions, or even emotions such as love (analogous to the role later romanticists ascribed to the heart, it persists as an metaphoric reference, even to this day, based of historical misbelief). Hence, the kidneys (and fat associated with them) were highly valued as 'guilt offerings', offering for making bad decisions. Ironically, the Psalmist praises YHWH's knowledge of the details of one's development while in the womb, claiming that YHWH examines on kidneys to know the embryo's capacity for wisdom. We know now that kidneys play NO role in decision-making, but are simply the body's excretory organs for removing waste products from the bloodstream to form urine.
All of this is well-known, and is easily found (links provided, if you care to learn).
-
jonathan dough
God's ignorance of his own design is on display for anyone willing to examine the evidence.
Be careful. It is a fearful thing to fall in the hands of the living God.
-
Leolaia
The Sadducees for the most part taught what the Torah taught what various schools within Judaism developed were simply that ideas absorbed from other cultures.
I think a good case can be made that the Sadducees were influenced to some extent by Epicureanism.
"The one fact that emerges with certainty from the sources is their denial of the resurrection. Since it was around the Maccabean period that this doctrine became popular in Judaism, it would seem to support their emergence as a group denying the new teaching at this time. The Sadducees were aristocratic and wealthy, centered around the priestly families....The Sadducees' attitude to God, according to Josephus, was as follows: Kai ton theon exò tou dran ti kakon hè ephoran tithentai, phasi d'ep' anthròpòn eklogè to te kalon kai to kakon prokeisthai..." (BJ 2.8). What does it mean to say that they 'remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight, of evil'? Josephus never explicitly compares the Sadducees with Epucreans, but there seems to be an affinity with Epicurean concept of the remoteness of the gods. [Josephus does, however, say that Epicureans do away with fate, as he says of the Sadducees: Ant. 10.278] Perhaps some Sadducees were influenced consciously or unconsciously by Greek philosophy. It was certainly priestly circles that were to the fore in the Hellenizing movement of the Maccabean period. Rejection of angels, 'messengers' whose existence implies that God communicates with the human world, the locus of evil, fits this attitude neatly. However, other Sadducees are likely to have been simply conservatives who rejected the new doctrine of resurrection on the basis that the Writings were far less authoritative than the Pentateuch, where it is unknown....Although the word is anachronistic, the bitter opposition of Pharisees and Sadducees with regard to purity laws indicates that the Pharisees at least regarded the Sadducees as unorthodox, in that they did not implement the Law correctly; and this was probably reciprocated. If 'angel and spirit' in Acts 23:8 represents a loose summary of post-second century developed angelology, the Sadducees also regarded the holders of these innovating views as unorthodox. However, because the majority of Jews quickly adopted the Pharisees' positions, including belief in resurrection, it would appear that what counted as right Judaism in most people's eyes changed rapidly; from being the defenders of traditional orthodoxy, the Sadducees became a small group opposed to the new orthodoxy of 'angel and spirit', i.e. resurrection" (R. M. M. Tuschling, Angels and Orthodoxy, 2007, p. 32-33)
It is difficult to say for sure because no genuine Sadducee writings are extant (with the possible exception of Ecclesiastes, if it could be regarded as a proto-Sadducee work).
Most of what the Jesus character of the Gospels taught was from the progressive school of the Pharisees.
John the Baptist and the Jesus of the synoptics seem closer to Essenism than Pharisaism in many ways; Matthew however places Jesus closer to Pharisees in thought, such as making him affirm the halakhic authority of the Pharisees.
-
King Solomon
Leo et al,
FWIW, I'm sure you've run across the significance of the tail-bone of the spine (Luz, what modern anatomists call the coccyx) as being important to the Jewish resurrection, as well as the significance of the living waters associated with Jewish/Xian resurrection and baptism.... Interesting is that this idea was shared with other cultures as a commonly-accepted belief of the period.
Sorry for the formatting: the special characters (Greek, Latin, Hebrew) doesn't come across...
(From JB Orian's Origins of European Thought About the Body, the Mind, the Soul, the World, Time, and Fate)
Here's a link to download a copy (which would be a light read or review for Leo: more substantial for the rest of us....)
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B9sNGJB_1pd9MTNveU1TYkJmQ0E
@@@@
Rabbinic tradition 3 taught that in the grave, while the rest of the body perishes, the lower end of the spine remains (known as Luz) which when the dew falls upon it will become a complete body again and live. Thus is solved the mystery of the Resurrection of the Body. Hell-fire (named from Gehenna) may now be seen to mean extremity in death, in that unhappy dryness (cf. p. 258, n. 5). It is contrasted with the water of life, which is with God (Ps. xxxvi, 9), coming out from his throne (Rev. xxii, 1, 17).4 So Dives' burning torment and need for water (Luke xvi, 24). In the judgement after death the reward of the righteous is the water of life, and the part of sinners 'shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone, which is the second death' (Rev. xxi, 6-9; cf. xx, i4f., vii, 17).
Not less illuminating is the Mohammedan view. In the Koran we read that God created every beast from water'.5 Like the Rabbinic teaching is the doctrine that in the grave the earth consumes the whole of the body except the bone al Ajb, the bottom of the spine, which will remain till the blast of resurrection.6 ' For this birth the earth will be prepared by the rain above mentioned which is to fall continually for forty years and will resemble the seed of a man and be supplied from the water under the throne of God which is called living water; by the efficacy and virtue of which the dead bodies
3 See e.g. the evidence collected by Pocock in his notes to Porta Mosis
(portions of Maimonides), p. 117, and Kohler, Jewish Theology, p. 288.
It is worth noting that this (Luz) was the tepdv ooreov (pp. 207 f.).4 Knowledge of this belief in the East explains Plaut. Trin. 940.
5 Chap, xxiv, 44 (Palmer's translation).
6 See Pocock, op. cit. pp. 255 f.
THE WATER OF LIFE. BOILING 289
shall spring forth from their graves as they did in their mother's womb or as corn sprouts forth by common rain, till they become perfect; after which breath will be breathed into them and they will sleep in their sepulchres till they are raised to life at the last trump.'* Then, when they are judged, those believers whose evil actions outweigh the good are said to be scorched for a time in hell, but, according to some, Mohammed taught that 'while they continue in hell they shall be deprived of life or (as his words are otherwise interpreted) be cast into a most profound sleep that they may be the less sensible of their torments; and that they shall afterwards be received into paradise and there revive on their being washed with the water of life'.2 Thus in this thought, that life is liquid, and the dead are dry we have found the reason for the widespread conception of a'water of life'.
That water is life is nowhere more strikingly illustrated than in the actual experience of frogs in Mediterranean and similar climes. There is a hymn in the Rig Veda about their reawakening after the dry season: 'When the waters from the sky fall upon them as they lie like a dried skin in the (dried up) pond, the voice of the frogs rises in concert like the lowing of cows which have calves.'z This helps us to understand why the frog was a symbol of resurrection.
1 Sale in 'The Preliminary Discourse' (to the Koran), Sect, iv (p. 65 in Warne's edition). Cf. irpcoTOTOKOs EK TCOV veKpcov, Coloss. i, 18.
2 Sale, op. cit. p. 72.For both the Greeks and the Romans strength belonged to the procreative life-soul, 4A^(f|, genius (pp. 187 ff.). We have already seen reason in the Biblical, Rabbinic and other evidence to believe that for the ancient Jews the 'spirit' = life-soul was associated with the head, believed to be in the head (pp. 103, 144, 153, 183, n. 4), which saw visions, was prophetic (p. 103, where ^the visions of the head' were visions of the ruah, Dan. ii, 1, 28); also that it was on the one hand—in a sneeze2 (pp. 104 f.)—conceived of as of the nature of vapour, fitting the name ruah and its Greek version TrveOncc, and on the other hand conceived of as liquid identical with the seed or life-fluid in the head and spine (pp. 144, 188 ff., 234 f., 287). By this identification we explained the linking of death with sexual shame in the Fall (Gen. ii, 17-iii, 19 on
1 E.g. Judges xiv, 6, 19; xv, 14. There is other evidence that vitality and strength were identified with the ruah. When the faint and strengthless are revived, their ruah returns to them. For example, when Samson, dying of thirst, had drunk,' his spirit (ruah) came again and he revived' (Judges xv,
19; cf. I Sam. xxx, 12 with xxviii, 20, 22, etc.). Encouraging Jerusalem, Isaiah implies that 'spirit' means strength: 'the Egyptians are men, and not God; and their horses are flesh, and not spirit... and they all shall fail together* (xxxi, 3).2 It is interesting to find in the Rabbinic tradition possession conceived of as the entry of a spirit in the form of a small fly through the nostrils into the brain (see L. Blau, Dasaltjud. Zauberwesen, p. 160), with which we may compare the Arab story of the punishment of Nimrod by the sending of a fly through his nostrils into his brain so that' he wandered to and fro as a madman' (seeJ. Meyouhas, Bible Tales in Arab Folklore, p. 43). Josephus tells how Eleazer draws out the spirit from one possessed by putting to his nostrils a ring having beneath its seal a root indicated by Solomon (Antiq. Jud. VIII, 2).
31-2484 IV. JEWISH CONCEPTIONS OF THE MIND, ETC.
p. 109, n. 4) and the belief that it is the tail-end of the spine which grows into a new body in the Resurrection (pp. 126, n. 3; 208; 287 f.). We also saw that strength and vitality were identified with the procreative life-soul (='spirit') in the head and hair (pp. 234f.). Thus far the conception is almost identical with what we have traced as underlying the yu)(i*| and the Roman genius.
The tail at the other end of the spinal marrow and associated with fertility by its hair (see pp. 130 f., 231 ff.) was also important. It consists largely of fat, the significance attached to which appears below (pp. 177, n. 9, 188 ff.). The tail-end of the spine was the * holy bone' for the Greeks (see pp. 208 ff.) and, as it were, the seed that grew into a new body according to Jews and Mohammedans (see p. 288). Such thoughts will explain why special value was attached to the tail of the October Horse, and to the liquid from it. See also p. 472.
-
designs
Leolaia- Good quote, this supports the contention that Jesus was leaning towards the progressive wing of Judaism and not the strict Torah alone party.
-
jonathan dough
Good quote, this supports the contention that Jesus was leaning towards the progressive wing of Judaism and not the strict Torah alone party.
Leaning towards? You don't know Jesus of the Bible. The Gospel breaks with Judaism whether progrerssive or conservative, nails the Old Covenant to the cross. Christ is about the New Covenant, not the old.
-
designs
Kid you needith to speak to a Rabbi